How We Lost Federal Protection For Wetlands and Streams
AND HOW WE CAN GET IT BACK!
(in simple terms!)

The Ruling On The Field

Reversing 30 years of regulatory practice and innumerable court decisions, a divided federal Supreme Court issued a 2001 decision (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County vs. US Army Corps of Engineers). Often abbreviated as called SWANCC, or “swank,” the ruling says that not all isolated wetlands hold federally protected status.

Then, in a 2004 decision called Rapanos (PDF), the Court in a 4-1-4 decision fell short of clarifying just what wetlands and streams deserve this protection.

Clashing Over Wetlands Law

Basically, four of the nine U.S. Supreme Court judges said only large “navigable” waters should be protected. Four judges said ‘let’s continue to regulate most waters and wetlands.’ Meanwhile, Justice Kennedy, said let’s protect only those waters that have an impact on “navigable” waters, meaning that if a wetland connects to a creek that takes its waters to a navigable water then we should protect that wetland –  if it can be shown that if the wetland is destroyed more pollution would enter the “navigable” water.

Don’t Flush Our Wetlands!

Because this test isn’t easy to prove, the Army Corps of Engineers and US EPA have decided they don’t want to have to make such decisions and have recently sent out guidance to their in the field staff saying that the federal government will not protect most isolated wetlands and intermittent streams.

That means it’s up to the state to protect these areas … before the lack of federal protection erases them forever!

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s advisors told the state to help protect those waterways that aren’t covered by the federal government. But developers and industry have put enormous pressure on the state to get it to set lax, unprotective rules.

We need to push back! Sign up for our e-activist list, to learn how you can help.